Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first Office Action on the merits of Application 18/871,019 filed on 12/2/24. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/2/24 & 11/20/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 12 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2961634 to Clause et al. (applicant cited reference).
Claim 1
Clause discloses in Figs 1-5,
A window glass assembly comprising: a glass panel (e.g. 1) having a through hole (e.g. 2) formed thereon, the through hole extending through the glass panel in a thickness direction of the glass panel; a connecting member (e.g. 4) fixedly arranged on a panel surface of the glass panel in a circumferential direction around the through hole; a bracket assembly (e.g. 3) connected to the connecting member; and a switch key assembly (paragraph 24, see electric device in Figs 4 & 5) mounted on the bracket assembly, a key of the switch key assembly being inserted into the through hole.
Claim 2
The window glass assembly according to claim 1, wherein the connecting member is integrally formed between the panel surface of the glass panel and the bracket assembly by injection molding; or the connecting member is an adhesive member (e.g. 4 & 37, paragraphs 31 and 33), and is bonded and fixed to the panel surface of the glass panel and the bracket assembly.
Claim 3
The window glass assembly according to claim 2, wherein a spacing between an inner edge of the connecting member and a hole edge of the through hole is defined as d, and wherein d>0.5 mm (Fig 1b, Paragraph 31).
Claim 15
A vehicle, comprising the window glass assembly according to claim 1 (paragraph 33).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2961634 to Clause et al. (applicant cited reference).
Claim 12
Clause discloses a window glass assembly with a glass panel, connecting member, bracket assembly and switch key assembly. Clause however, does not explicitly disclose that a minimum spacing between a central axis of the through hole and an edge of the glass panel is defined as S, a radius of the through hole is defined as r, and S and r satisfy the following expression: S>3r. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to select a minimum spacing between a central axis of the through hole and an edge of the glass panel is defined as S, a radius of the through hole is defined as r, and S and r satisfy the following expression: S>3r., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 13
Clause does not explicitly disclose wherein the connecting member is a thermoplastic encapsulation, and a hardness of the connecting member is in a range of 50 Shore to 80 Shore; and the connecting member is a thermosetting encapsulation, and a hardness of the connecting member is above 80 Shore. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to wherein the connecting member is a thermoplastic encapsulation, and a hardness of the connecting member is in a range of 50 Shore to 80 Shore; and the connecting member is a thermosetting encapsulation, and a hardness of the connecting member is above 80 Shore, since it has held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 & 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimomura ‘225 teaches a glass sheet and glad window for a vehicles.
Gates ‘840 teaches a vehicle liftgate window component module.
Yu ‘921 teaches a vehicle window glass assembly and manufacturing thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN LE whose telephone number is (571)270-3122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUAN LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights